Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? - Page 6

**Miburo** · 07-12-2010, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order

Stealing would be ok unless it happened to you. Then it would become immoral again. So do you define is as things you don't want others to do to you?

Not necessarily. I could simply accept the consequences for not protecting my belongings from theft well enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RNB

A government is establish to protect the initiation of force in those extreme circumstances where stealing would "seem" to be or is in fact rational. The thing is, other people might also feel it is rational to steal your property. With a government set up, it makes it less rational to steal, and it makes your property safer.

I dunno. I can rationalize and argue the virtues of stealing for the individual doing the stealing. If they feel the rewards are greater than the risks, and take pride in their abilities as a thief, then why shouldn't they steal? It's something they take pride in doing, and something that they obtain happiness from.

Yeah, you're right in that the risks may make it less rational. But there are instances where the risks are greatly diminished for various reasons, that aren't all that uncommon or extreme. I'm sure I could research the security measures used in stores and get away with shoplifting without much risk of getting caught if I really put the effort into it.

And I'm sure a lot of people would rather have their property be safer over being able to steal. But I'd bet there are people who would rather steal and protect their own property themselves. That's more of a difference in priorities between people.

Quote:

I would say that stealing is rational in life-boat circumstances. I think, when forming a reality for living in the "real world," those instances can be somewhat neglected. If you are on an island and there is only enough food for one person, it is moral to kill off the others. For the sake of our morality, it should be fine say that cold-blooded murder is irrational.

And what is the essence of a life-boat circumstance? In those cases, no one really wins. You might survive, but will you really be happy afterward? Life isn't full of life-boat circumstances, and it is full of situations where everyone can win if they act rationally.

I think an objective morality should apply in all circumstances, even if they're extremely rare. Otherwise it would only really apply to a current societies way of living, instead of universally among all human beings. That's why I think it has to be kept vague, and only applied contextually like you said earlier.

RNB · 07-12-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

I dunno. I can rationalize and argue the virtues of stealing for the individual doing the stealing. If they feel the rewards are greater than the risks, and take pride in their abilities as a thief, then why shouldn't they steal? It's something they take pride in doing, and something that they obtain happiness from.

You can earn the same amount of money and pride doing other activities that are less risky. In the long run, making a career out of theft is not a good idea for anyone who lives in the United States.

Quote:

Yeah, you're right in that the risks may make it less rational. But there are instances where the risks are greatly diminished for various reasons, that aren't all that uncommon or extreme. I'm sure I could research the security measures used in stores and get away with shoplifting without much risk of getting caught if I really put the effort into it.

You could do that, or you just earn the money and then buy the item you want. The latter way means you don't have to lie about where you got the item from and other stuff like that.

Don't get me wrong. If it is rational to steal in an instance, then it is moral. I just would like to point out that this is pretty unlikely.

Quote:

And I'm sure a lot of people would rather have their property be safer over being able to steal. But I'd bet there are people who would rather steal and protect their own property themselves. That's more of a difference in priorities between people.

There probably are people that would rather steal. Whether it is better for them to do so, especially for a whole lifetime, is a moral question.

Quote:

I think an objective morality should apply in all circumstances, even if they're extremely rare. Otherwise it would only really apply to a current societies way of living, instead of universally among all human beings. That's why I think it has to be kept vague, and only applied contextually like you said earlier.

The morality itself should be vague, but I am saying that if people want generalizations then one has to think of what a common context would be. I think we can definitely tell the person that murder is wrong.

ACt · 07-12-2010, 07:17 PM

Wow - the level of intelligence is reaching critical mass... I guess it balances out in the sister thread to this debate.

The idea of objective morality was best put earlier by RNB as pleasure = good vs pain = bad (and I apologize - my metaphysics was never that strong and so I see this primarily in a biological context as before). The basic selfish biological drives can guide behaviour whether both consciously and subconsciously across most social or interacting species. Simplistically, it's the same sort of learning children go through when they learn not to touch hot. Hot brings pain, don't do it again.

The idea of stealing becomes far more complex because we have very specific definitions around the act. But if define it as cheating or lying, you then find context for it outside of humanity. Cheaters are those who try to either dupe fellows into aiding them and then not reciprocating, or to take more than their share by distracting others. Naturally, much like the thief who takes your money, there is big short term gains. But in the long term, the cheaters are identified and their success drops and their fellows will even shun them. (Generalization of Evolutionary Game Theory which basically demonstrates that cooperators come out ahead in the long run - Wiki actually does a decent job of the Tit for Tat reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat)

How does that apply to society? Well, even though I would agree that most morals now have subjective definitions (and some are purely so based on culture - don't eat beef? Crazy.), the basis comes back to the simple pain v. pleasure or if you will the Golden Rule. Stealing has been unanimously set up as amoral because it causes suffering to one end. As for the stealer, even if there were no punishment, trust and membership to the society would be inevitably cut by individuals (assuming he was caught, of course) who would fear a similar suffering if they were to trust the stealer, which would mean short term gain and long term loss for the thief. Instincitvely, it makes sense. Many other of societies norms will fall into a similar pattern. Humans have just added complexity to the simple instinct - language, customs, social strata, legal systems/deterrents etc. that muddies the waters a little when talking about morality.

**Mal** · 07-12-2010, 07:42 PM

I don't care what anyone else in this thread has said, I'm just going to answer the question: Yes.

In fact, religion often gets in the way of living a moral life.

SilverbladeVI · 07-12-2010, 11:12 PM

^ I have to agree with Mal on this one.

But anyways.

Humans been here for about millions of years and we do the same exact thing with religion or without reilgion. So therefore it is possible for man to survive without reiligion, because man has been surviving for millions of years.

WHICH IS
Learn, Grow, Survive, etc..

A religion appoints you to a series of beliefs for you to take under your belt and to obey them. If not religion states that there will be consequences.

stubborn_d0nkey · 07-13-2010, 04:05 AM

@Mibs. It seems to me that we disagree on some more fundamental things concerning nurture, reasoning, morality, etc. This is why a consensus is far away. If the discussion would have gone through its natural path we would have probably worked our way down to those fundamental things, had a lengthy argument there, then upon any consensus worked our way back up. I don't really see a more probable course of the argument (if a true consensus was to be achieved). It would be too lengthy, I would probably be too lazy, and anyways, it's not a discussion about the main question. So I say we agree to disagree about the swayed topic, and leave it at agreeing that a man can be moral without religion.

Law&Order · 07-13-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RNB

I would highly suggest not using faith to describe confidence in this thread. It makes it seem as if you are talking about religious faith, which is different than what you are trying to describe.

I have confidence in the logic. You are absolutely right on that. However, their is a huge difference between having confidence in A=A and having confidence that in an invisible god. I have confidence that A cannot be non-A because that contradict logic itself. My statement, "that would contradict logic itself" would have no meaning. Language has no meaning without confidence in logic. There is no such thing as "meaning" without confidence in logic. There is no such thing as "definition" without logic.

Try and refute the idea of contradiction itself. That's impossible, because in order to do so you have to find a contradiction somewhere.

Yes, I understand 100% what you are saying and agree fully. But at the same time my argument/debate is with the futility of the original question. Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? I have said that this is impossible to debate. Religion follows no logic and is up to each persons interpretation (as Milburo has been so kindly pointing out). So that what one man considers immoral another man will consider moral. You can never have total agreement on anyone living a moral life. Where I was going with Faith or if you like as you said earlier Belief (since some base their beliefs on others words, while others base it on logic) is the only way to approach the question.

"Is it possible for man to live a moral life without Belief in "____Insert Your Belief____". This way you can enter in every belief possible and calculate if everyone were to hold my same belief would we all end up with the same moral code. To make short work of it any non-logical belief you can define as A=/=A, therefore every man is free to define A as he pleases but never will every man define it as the same thing. It is my personal belief that there is only one Belief that would lead everyone to reach the same moral code. Complete Self Dependence based in as you said logic. Where a man's wealth is created through the ability of his mind, and he has no moral obligation to provide or care for anyone other than himself. That failure for a man to produce to grow to gain knowledge would be failure for him to exist. People will say what if stealing was your ability. I would argue that they have violated their first belief and don't belong in the model. That Complete Self Dependence would eliminate the need to loot another mans abilities, wealth or his mind. That if you wanted what he had you would earn it. That force would no longer be needed because the greatest weapon anyone has is his mind.

Basically I disliked the original question and looked to push the discussion in a different direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order
Stealing would be ok unless it happened to you. Then it would become immoral again. So do you define is as things you don't want others to do to you?

Not necessarily. I could simply accept the consequences for not protecting my belongings from theft well enough.

That would be shifting blame, but it doesn't mean you would accept it. It would be immoral for you to accept blame for another man's action. To accept fault that your property your wealth was taken from you via force. And that justifying the theif's immorality would be a greater disservice to yourself and your livelihood by creating a society of acceptance for others who turn to immoral actions for survival; which in turn would leave you more vulnerable to continued looting. You could pretend to accept it maybe but you would know deep within yourself that the act committed was immoral. That it was wrong for another take what they had not earned no matter the reason. To accept immorality as just the way it is and to give it justification is worse than being immoral.

**Miburo** · 07-13-2010, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

@Mibs. It seems to me that we disagree on some more fundamental things concerning nurture, reasoning, morality, etc. This is why a consensus is far away. If the discussion would have gone through its natural path we would have probably worked our way down to those fundamental things, had a lengthy argument there, then upon any consensus worked our way back up. I don't really see a more probable course of the argument (if a true consensus was to be achieved). It would be too lengthy, I would probably be too lazy, and anyways, it's not a discussion about the main question. So I say we agree to disagree about the swayed topic, and leave it at agreeing that a man can be moral without religion.

Uh, I'll agree that we do disagree. But not as any sort of acknowledgment that your stance on the matter has any merit. I think I've presented a good case in regards to my stance, and if you don't wish to attempt to counter it, then whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order

That would be shifting blame, but it doesn't mean you would accept it. It would be immoral for you to accept blame for another man's action. To accept fault that your property your wealth was taken from you via force. And that justifying the theif's immorality would be a greater disservice to yourself and your livelihood by creating a society of acceptance for others who turn to immoral actions for survival; which in turn would leave you more vulnerable to continued looting. You could pretend to accept it maybe but you would know deep within yourself that the act committed was immoral. That it was wrong for another take what they had not earned no matter the reason. To accept immorality as just the way it is and to give it justification is worse than being immoral.

I don't consider it as shifting blame any more than I would if I was beaten in a wrestling match and accepted my defeat. If someone is able to steal my shit, then I obviously didn't protect my shit well enough from possible thefts. Facing up to that fact, and it is a fact, isn't immoral. In fact, I could easily argue that not acknowledging that fact would be a disservice to myself, and leave me more vulnerable to future looting. I can more easily control my own actions than those of others. By analyzing my own shortcomings which lead to allowing myself to be stolen from, I could use that information to become much better prepared to stop or prevent further attempts of theft. Accepting a part of the responsibility is much more useful to me than placing the blame fully on the thief.

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not actually condoning theft. I'm simply saying that one could likely argue for the morality of stealing when operating under certain proposed moral systems. For example: Yes, there are less dangerous professions than thievery. Does that make it immoral? I dunno. Is construction work immoral since there are less dangerous professions, comparatively speaking? Etc. It's actually quite hard to argue a case against it when operating under the system we were discussing in this thread. And I actually support that system myself, so I'm not trying to discredit it or anything. But when I think about it myself, I work to make sure it's as valid as possible in my head. So I try to argue against it, and I sometimes can. Which is why I'm hesitant to fully adopt the stance as entirely with merit myself. That's pretty much all I was trying to say, really.

stubborn_d0nkey · 07-13-2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Uh, I'll agree that we do disagree. But not as any sort of acknowledgment that your stance on the matter has any merit. I think I've presented a good case in regards to my stance, and if you don't wish to attempt to counter it, then whatever.

You did make a good stance, I can't counter it since we (IMO) obviously disagree on some more fundamental things (premises if you wish). That makes the discussion kinda pointless

It's like how a discussion about if a woman has the right to an abortion without agreement from the future father, is kinda pointless if the two sides have a different stance about if a woman has the right to an abortion in general.

I know its not a good example but you are intelligent enough to understand what I mean.

However if you have a great desire to continue such a discussion, I am willing to endure the lengthy path I described in my previous post.

**Miburo** · 07-13-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

However if you have a great desire to continue such a discussion, I am willing to endure the lengthy path I described in my previous post.

I honestly can't say I have a great desire to discuss much of anything intellectual with you in particular. Though, I'd probably drudge through it, knowing that I'd likely get to call you stupid lots. Which would make it much more bearable.

Law&Order · 07-13-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

I don't consider it as shifting blame any more than I would if I was beaten in a wrestling match and accepted my defeat. If someone is able to steal my shit, then I obviously didn't protect my shit well enough from possible thefts. Facing up to that fact, and it is a fact, isn't immoral. In fact, I could easily argue that not acknowledging that fact would be a disservice to myself, and leave me more vulnerable to future looting. I can more easily control my own actions than those of others. By analyzing my own shortcomings which lead to allowing myself to be stolen from, I could use that information to become much better prepared to stop or prevent further attempts of theft. Accepting a part of the responsibility is much more useful to me than placing the blame fully on the thief.

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not actually condoning theft. I'm simply saying that one could likely argue for the morality of stealing when operating under certain proposed moral systems. For example: Yes, there are less dangerous professions than thievery. Does that make it immoral? I dunno. Is construction work immoral since there are less dangerous professions, comparatively speaking? Etc. It's actually quite hard to argue a case against it when operating under the system we were discussing in this thread. And I actually support that system myself, so I'm not trying to discredit it or anything. But when I think about it myself, I work to make sure it's as valid as possible in my head. So I try to argue against it, and I sometimes can. Which is why I'm hesitant to fully adopt the stance as entirely with merit myself. That's pretty much all I was trying to say, really.

I know you're not condoning stealing. But for the sake of debating looking at having property stolen from you as if beaten in a wrestling match is a tough stretch for me to make. Maybe a WWF Wrestling match where the referee was distracted and you were knocked out with a chair style loss. Not a collegiate style match where two men meet and compete on under agreed upon terms. But yes under all but one moral system can a man's actions be debated as moral and immoral. And that is a world in which we live in. We live in world of blended ideas and views of what morality is and what is to be tolerated, etc. Where a man's need is used to try and give reason to his actions. And where a man's actions can be used against him as exceeding his needs.

**Miburo** · 07-13-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Law&Order

I know you're not condoning stealing. But for the sake of debating looking at having property stolen from you as if beaten in a wrestling match is a tough stretch for me to make. Maybe a WWF Wrestling match where the referee was distracted and you were knocked out with a chair style loss. Not a collegiate style match where two men meet and compete on under agreed upon terms. But yes under all but one moral system can a man's actions be debated as moral and immoral. And that is a world in which we live in. We live in world of blended ideas and views of what morality is and what is to be tolerated, etc. Where a man's need is used to try and give reason to his actions. And where a man's actions can be used against him as exceeding his needs.

I am talking about real wrestling, I wouldn't do that fake ballerina shit. Lolol.

It's not like I wouldn't be aware of the fact that there are people out there that steal shit. That I should take precautions to prevent them from stealing my shit. Etc. There was a shortcoming on my end of things, just as in me losing a match. The analogy certainly applies here.

You were the one saying it would be immoral for me to admit to those shortcoming on my end. I simply disagreed, and presented a counter-argument.

Though, not really sure you're talking about the same shit RNB and I were talking about, to be honest...

Law&Order · 07-13-2010, 07:21 PM

Yeah I have wandered off the path of what you two were discussing.

My question I am proposing - Is it possible for men to ever agree on what is to live a moral life?

**Miburo** · 07-13-2010, 08:18 PM

Uh...yeah.

Law&Order · 07-13-2010, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Uh...yeah.

How?

You and I will never agree on 100% of all scenarios. We will never agree to which actions are moral and which are immoral. You can't bring yourself to define if stealing is moral or immoral. You want to break it down to a case by case scenario. Our beliefs will keep us from ever agreeing to what is right and what is wrong. We have more common ground than Muslims and Christians do. They would have a even harder time agreeing on morality. Even factions within the same religion will have a hard time agreeing.

07-12-2010, 07:17 PM	#78
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,249 Thanks: 5,321 Thanked 18,677 Times in 4,843 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Wow - the level of intelligence is reaching critical mass... I guess it balances out in the sister thread to this debate. The idea of objective morality was best put earlier by RNB as pleasure = good vs pain = bad (and I apologize - my metaphysics was never that strong and so I see this primarily in a biological context as before). The basic selfish biological drives can guide behaviour whether both consciously and subconsciously across most social or interacting species. Simplistically, it's the same sort of learning children go through when they learn not to touch hot. Hot brings pain, don't do it again. The idea of stealing becomes far more complex because we have very specific definitions around the act. But if define it as cheating or lying, you then find context for it outside of humanity. Cheaters are those who try to either dupe fellows into aiding them and then not reciprocating, or to take more than their share by distracting others. Naturally, much like the thief who takes your money, there is big short term gains. But in the long term, the cheaters are identified and their success drops and their fellows will even shun them. (Generalization of Evolutionary Game Theory which basically demonstrates that cooperators come out ahead in the long run - Wiki actually does a decent job of the Tit for Tat reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) How does that apply to society? Well, even though I would agree that most morals now have subjective definitions (and some are purely so based on culture - don't eat beef? Crazy.), the basis comes back to the simple pain v. pleasure or if you will the Golden Rule. Stealing has been unanimously set up as amoral because it causes suffering to one end. As for the stealer, even if there were no punishment, trust and membership to the society would be inevitably cut by individuals (assuming he was caught, of course) who would fear a similar suffering if they were to trust the stealer, which would mean short term gain and long term loss for the thief. Instincitvely, it makes sense. Many other of societies norms will fall into a similar pattern. Humans have just added complexity to the simple instinct - language, customs, social strata, legal systems/deterrents etc. that muddies the waters a little when talking about morality.

07-12-2010, 07:42 PM	#79
Mal Scotch Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,101 Thanks: 12,855 Thanked 10,823 Times in 3,840 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? I don't care what anyone else in this thread has said, I'm just going to answer the question: Yes. In fact, religion often gets in the way of living a moral life.

07-12-2010, 11:12 PM	#80
SilverbladeVI Missing-Nin Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 1,231 Thanks: 3,202 Thanked 3,298 Times in 1,116 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? ^ I have to agree with Mal on this one. But anyways. Humans been here for about millions of years and we do the same exact thing with religion or without reilgion. So therefore it is possible for man to survive without reiligion, because man has been surviving for millions of years. WHICH IS Learn, Grow, Survive, etc.. A religion appoints you to a series of beliefs for you to take under your belt and to obey them. If not religion states that there will be consequences.

07-13-2010, 07:21 PM	#88
Law&Order Fear the Beard! Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 511 Thanks: 70 Thanked 143 Times in 67 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Yeah I have wandered off the path of what you two were discussing. My question I am proposing - Is it possible for men to ever agree on what is to live a moral life? __________________ - The Facts of Life - Chuck Norris can judge a book by its cover! - Warning - “Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise."

07-13-2010, 08:18 PM	#89
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion? Uh...yeah.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays?	Sharingan Lord	Debates Section	58	04-05-2008 01:22 AM
Islam Protesting against Danish Cartoons	DarkAztek	Debates Section	124	12-29-2006 09:59 PM
~ In for a good, long read?	Nuerhachi Niru	Chit Chat	13	11-30-2006 07:20 AM
live it up, a song	kakashi29	Music Talk	3	06-13-2006 09:08 PM
You all knew it was comming... ABORTION	«Artos»	Debates Section	372	04-26-2006 12:27 AM